Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Congress/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 11:46, 26 September 2007.

United States Congress[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress.

Completely missing any inline references. Was promoted to FA status way back in 2005, when FA standards were quite different than now. Such an important article needs more work done to it. --Sdornan 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's one Ronald Reagan quote which needs a citation and a handful of excerpts from the Constitution which could use clearer source information. What other statements do you think are likely to be challenged? Reading the article it doesn't seem to make many statements that would be at all controversial. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article criteria clearly lists (d) consistently formatted inline citations, using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.) as criteria for a featured article. Sdornan 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose is the best way to add in-line citations? There are extensive sources listed in the article, but it would be a monumental undertaking to review those source documents (most are books and not on-line) and then try to reverse engineer which fact or statement in the document is connected to that source. I realize that this is a key reason why in-line citations are important, and why the article fails on that point. Constutional statements would be fairly easy to reverse cite, but I doubt very much that the article will ever see in-line citations added unless the article is completely rewritten. If in-line citations are the criteria for featured article status, then I say remove it from the featured list. The article still stands on its own as a good article.Dcmacnut 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a style requirement; the guideline for what statements require inline citations is that quotation require them, as well as statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the necessary-and-proper clause section? pasting job is a mess and it looks like quotations are needed... Monkwaugh 08:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 09:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Little work has been done since the FAR began. De-feature per 1c. -- Kicking222 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Little work as been done because, IMO, no work needs to be done. The article is extensively sourced, and a few inline citations have been added where appropriate. FARC 1c merely requires an article to be "factually accurate" and is "verifiable against reliable sources." There is no requirement that every statement in the article receive an inline citation. The sources listed at the bottom are more than enough to verify the article. It is well-written and accurate and should remain a featured article.Dcmacnut 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How long does the article remain listed here? When I have time, I'd be happy to work on referencing the article. I have some good books and other material to work from, but just don't have a lot of time at the moment. I'm trying to get another article to FAC in the next week or so, then will be on wikibreak (for a ~week) at the beginning of September. Expect to have time to work on this when I come back after that. Suppose it wouldn't be a huge problem if this gets delisted, and then renominated in 1-2 months? It might as well stay listed, though. --Aude (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I see this was listed on July 29. I just got back from 2 weeks wikibreak, so first time I see this. I may be able to do small bits of work to the article in the next two weeks. No promises, but will have time in mid-September. It's not a matter of finding sources and adding the citations. I have material to work with, and many of the books listed in the references section can probably be located in local used books shops here. --Aude (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aude, if significant work is undertaken, by you or any other editors, before the close of the FARC, let me know on my talkpage and I'll gladly reexamine my article (and, obviously, my above !vote). -- Kicking222 14:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as you're working on it, it will be left open. Marskell 14:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per DcMacnut - This article seems to me like no work needs to be done, ok there are 6 unsubstantiated facts that require sources but surely that can't be enough to delist it? Onnaghar tl | co 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there are several {{fact}} tags in a FA candidate article, it would probably not pass. So delisting a FA article due to unsubstantiated facts seems normal, although it is certainly not preferable! In an emergency, one could remove the unsubstantiated facts temporarily until Aude has the time to work on it. --RelHistBuff 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I start being unhappy at the prose right at the top. For example:
    • It's not the House, but its members, who serve two-year terms.
    • Wouldn't it be nice to have that tiny pic in the infoblot blown up to a better size and placed at the top?
    • "The House and Senate are co-equal houses." I disagree.
    • "two thirds"—MOS breach.
    • Stubby paragraphs.
    • "51-49 Senate majority"—MOS breach.
    • "2 independents"—MOS breach.
    • "namely" is redundant.
    • although in formal registers. Tony 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Article lacks citations, and it appears efforts have not been made to find citations for statements specifically marked as needing them. Jay32183 23:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just to reiterate my previous vote. Please point out which statements have been specifically identified as needing citations? I see no [citation needed] tags anywhere in the article. There are extensive citations at the bottom of the article, and FAR does not require in-line citations. As far as MOS concerns, the are easily rectified.Dcmacnut 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c, and Tony's concerns. LuciferMorgan 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: There are at least 5 citation-needed superscripts that I see in the article. FA criteria does require inline citations where appropriate, so there may be more. If someone requested them, they most certainly need to be supplied, but one should be proactive and put citations on any issue that may require verification. If there are MOS concerns as specified here in this FAR, then the editors should rectify them now. These basic issues can easily bring down an article during its FA candidacy. The same criteria applies here. --RelHistBuff 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above and WP:FACR c1. Lack of in-line citations hinders verifiability. -- Chris B • Talk • Contribs 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added citations to the bulk of those statements identified as needing them. I also deleted several items that were unnecessary to the purpose of the article. I still think it deserves featured article status.Dcmacnut 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All of the "Citations needed" have been addressed. This is a large subject and not every sentence can be (or ought to be) explicitly sourced.—Markles 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What actually needs "in-line citations"? The article looks good. Which specific statements need a source that doesn't already have one? Keep listed for now. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I would suggest the "Comparison to Parliamentary systems" needs it in several places. There are items that are debatable and taken from someone's analysis or opinion (e.g., "The lack of superpowerful political parties allows U.S. Congressmen to more faithfully represent their constituents than members of parliament can" or "A problem in some parliamentary democracies, especially Canada, is regional alienation"). From which reference did these gems come from? None of the references are the obvious choice for looking up the info. Someone could have sneaked this in à la Siegenthaler. This article would most likely fail as an FAC nowadays. --RelHistBuff 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As general advice for what to cite, don't just look to WP:V. Citations can help an article with WP:NOR concerns as well. WP:CS does list reasons to cite sources beyond preventing edit wars over controversial material. Jay32183 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some notes on the talk page that may start helping explain these portions for you. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comparison with Parliamentary systems could use sources, but I've seen much worse. I strongly suspect that the judgment involved, that Congressmen are more dependent on their constituents than MP's are, is non-controversial, at least within the United States; our text does not mention one of the material differences: that Representatives must reside in their districts, Senators in their States. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you state applies to the UK but not necessarily to parliamentary systems in general. The section which seriously needs citations also seems to be restricted to comparing UK/Canada and US models, probably based on someone's personal experience and hence it is very likely original research (one would never know for sure unless there were cites that one could verify). The use of weasel words such as "generally" seems to support that possibility. Not only does this bring doubt to this section, but the lack of citations in general puts the rest of the article into doubt. In my opinion, it is best to defeature, work on bringing in proper citations, and then bring it back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 10:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Closing: Well, a split review so the numbers don't solve it. I cannot in good faith keep this. We have zero citations and then suddenly four arrive on one sentence. We have numerous unsourced dates, numbers, and judgements. And RelHist is dead on with the comparison section: the facts may be accurate but it clearly reads as off-the-top-of-the-head original research. Nor is it clear that we even need that section.

There's plenty of info here and this could go back to FAC easily enough if better sourced. But removing for now soon, if no work. Marskell 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my unofficial rule is to wait a week after improvement work. There has been some here since the beginning of the month so I'll wait three more days. We need quite a bit of work here, however. Marskell 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would you mind going through the article and tagging those specific statements that you feel need (and don't have) a source. I suppose I would be interested in trying to keep this article listed, and would like to know specifically what needs work. Is it just every "date, number, and judgement" that needs a little <ref> tag next to it? Because that's not necessarily how an encyclopedia works. But any assistance would be appreciated. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to tag bomb this article, no—that rankles people. As suggested, the entire Comparisons section needs sourcing or cutting. We have sentences like "A problem in some parliamentary democracies, especially Canada, is regional alienation, which is generally not present in the United States Senate," which manage to be both too vague and too judgemental at the same time. We could just as easily argue "A problem in the United States Senate is that it accords equal representation to California and Wyoming."
Go back up the page: "The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One." Hangers-on to the current emperor seem to feel the greater power was vested in the executive. The entire article needs to be audited for judgements of this sort. But I don't mind waiting, if you begin. Marskell 09:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirm my earlier declaration of remove. It's a great and important topic, and one that Americans know too little about, not to mention foreigners. But the referencing is quite unsatisfactory. When I see major statements such as this, I two-thirds believe them, but that's not at all good enough. I'd want not just any old reference, but one or two authoritative ones:

The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen the rise of the power of the Presidency under Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), Richard Nixon (1969–74), Ronald Reagan (1981–89), and George W. Bush (2001–) (see Imperial Presidency). In recent years, Congress has restricted the powers of the President with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution; nevertheless, the Presidency remains considerably more powerful than during the nineteenth century.

And why the sloppy inconsistency in the closing year ranges. "Presidency" might well start with lower case (unsure, anyone know?) Is 1974 recent? When was the WPR? It's a complicated issue, and is tossed off here in what are probably simplistic terms. I lose confidence in the whole article, because it's all about trust.

What inconsistency? The years listed are both consistent and correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a deeper problem: often, the article is simplistic or lacking in logic. Let's look at "Checks and balances".

Paragraphing is awkward.

"The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One." I don't buy the logic. The Australian Senate is not as powerful as the House, but it's always mentioned first (a relic from the class-based Lords/Commons).

See any general history of the United States detailed enough to cover the Consitutional Convention in detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Under the first half-dozen Presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the President and Congress, in part because early Presidents largely restricted their vetoes to claims of unconstitutionality." Look, this is far too simplistic (evenly = the same in effect, and that can't possibly be true).

"In 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of Federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding, however, that Congress could not ..."—This sentence needs to be split for the sake of our digestive systems.

"Comparison to Parliamentary systems" (title)—MOS breach, and "with" would be slightly better.

Any "review" that uses the uncivil term "MOS breach" should be summarily disregarded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I find it extraordinary that the widely acknowledged gerrymandering of (House) districts that has gone on since the 1970s—a gentleman's agreement between the two parties to render quite a lot of districts solid seats for one or other party (a snitch to retain for the lazy)—goes without mention. So does the practice of tagging bills with extraneous, irrelevant sops to local constituents, to vote-buy. And so do all of the other widely reported aspects of the corruption by money of the congressional system, an intricate issue that can and should be reported in a POV manner; it's not as though there isn't enough literature on it. This article would offend no congressional staffer who was charged with satinising it, and that must surely be of concern to the project. Tony 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "president" is only treated as a proper noun when part of a specific title or as the official title of a position. "President Nixon" not "president Nixon", "Nixon was President of the United States" not "Nixon was president of the United States", and "Nixon was U.S. president", not "Nixon was U.S. President." According to MOS:CAPS anyway. Jay32183 18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest "the American Presidency" (proper noun) but "the Bush presidency" (common). Marskell 07:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ali'i is working so I guess the reprieve continues. Marskell 15:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying, I'm trying. I really would like this important topic to be a Featured Article (FA). But there really is a lot that needs to be "adjusted" to have this be the best of the best. So now, here's my problem. It is obviously a lot easier to maintain FA status than it is to gain FA status. So I could say, "this still needs some work. De-feature for now", but I know it wouldn't make it through the rigmarole of WP:FAC again soon. Or I could say, "I'm working on it, don't de-feature it yet", and then continually draw out the process ad infinitum.
So this is my problem. Do I let this go on being a FA, when I know in my heart-of-hearts that it is extremely good, but not quite up to the current standards for FAs (and would currently fail if it went through FAC again)? Or do I relent and accept that it should be de-featured, and have Wikipedia lose such an important FA? It would be nice if FAs that were de-featured could get re-featured without having to go through the same process again. Has anything like that ever been presented? Well, do what you will. A hui hou. --Ali'i 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section break[edit]

Update I see that User:Ali'i has been working on the article, which has been a huge help. As promised above, it's now mid-September and I have some time to spend on the article. Some edits today [1], adding sources and material. I have plenty of source material at my disposal to use to help add cites, but it won't all happen overnight. Not sure how quickly we can get this fully cited and up to current FAC standards, but just let you know it's being worked on. Have also taken note of Tony's concerns about the prose. --Aude (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see that some work has been done, but heck, this is a very exposed article for WP, and will be judged against exacting standards. I took another para at random:

The constitution provides certain checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; The degree of usurpation of the power of Congress depends largely on the leadership, political influence and boldness of the encroachments attempted by the President. If the Congress is not united these may often succeed for a time until the Congress has the votes to override a Presidential veto.

    • Remove "certain". Upper-case after semicolon? "Usurpation"—there's an ugly word. The last sentence is vague, inaccurate, and seemingly referring to a particular historical window. Examples, please? References, please? I just don't believe the text without them. I don't like "attempted". What does "united" mean here? Remove "for a time". But critically, NOWHERE does this article provide a critical fact: that presidential vetoes can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both houses. How could that have been omitted? This has been in the article for some time now... but really should be in the "checks and balances" section. --Ali'i 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC) And what about some useful data on the relationship between Congress and the presidency? List the vetoes during key historical periods? List the overridings? (Can't be too many.)[reply]

Why isn't there an exigesis of the historical roots in the British parliament of the day, and its relationship with the king? Why aren't there comparisons with the power structures in other comparable/different jurisdictions? Why is there no mention of the influence of the congressional/presidential system on that of the US state governments, and other public organisations (many universities, for example)? Superficial, and needs to be deep, penetrating, insightful, enlightening. It can be all of these things without being original research.

Sorry, not happy yet. We need to provide a clear, precise, comprehensive article on this topic, for both Americans and foreigners. No one is yet well served. Tony 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy yet, either. But heck, I only started work on it yesterday. Unbelievable that you think I have the ability get everything addressed in just a day (or actually a few hours). As already mentioned, it won't all happen overnight. But, my understanding of FAR is that as long as the article is being worked on, the review can continue. Or am I wrong about that? I'm new to FAR, so if someone can please enlighten me on how this works, I would greatly appreciated it. Should I keep working on the article? Or should I not bother at this point? --Aude (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, keep at it. It's still open. Marskell 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have continued work. Not sure how long it will take to resolve all issues and get the article to a level of quality that's expected of current FACs. I know the article is still deficient, but will do what I can, User:Ali'i is helping, and others to resolve those issues ASAP. I'm first working to make sure the article is "comprehensive", with inline citations throughout. Then, will go through and work on copyediting and styles issues. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - citations would definetly be helpful, especially in the paragraph talking about the so-called "Imperial presidency." Happyme22 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm still concerned about the links in the quoted material, as it's not clear to me that the articles linked reflect original meaning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which specific links do you doubt?
    • There appear to be two classes: One is represented by the link from magazines to Magazine (artillery), which elegantly identifies, for those who need it, the relevant sense of the word. I doubt any of these are genuinely controversial. (Some of them are unimportant, like the link from forts to Fortification; but leaving these out might be a change of emphasis.
    • The other is represented by the link from borrow money on the credit of the United States to United States public debt, the relevant subarticle of History of the United States. I found that this immediately brought up a large and dubious chart of this debt as a proportion of GDP; but that's not a problem with this article (and I fixed it); to declare it one is to discourage all links whatsoever. This is equivalent to {{main}}, except that the number of invocations of {{main}} required to do the same job would be unmanageable.
    Such links should of course be done with circumspection, to avoid bias; so should all writing. Equally of course, they should all be checked. This system, however, is one of the article's great strengths; to make it an objection would make FA a disservice to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. An excellent article. Almost all of the remove objections are trivial; some betray ignorance of American government and English grammar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good work, those who have improved it. The wiki system's built-in "oversight" (if it exists) can surely keep an article on such an important topic in good shape without endlessly citing sentences that a high-school student can look up in a library. –Outriggr § 04:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the central criticisms of the page, it's simplicity and its OR, remain unaddressed. The comparisons section, particularly, is still a bit of a joke. But people have tried, so I'll try to contact them. Marskell 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had much time to work on Wikipedia in the past few days. Agree completely with all the opposes, comments, criticisms, etc. Not sure how long it will take to get to current FA standards, but still working on it. It wouldn't bother me terribly if this was removed as a FA, because when I'm done working on it, the article should be at a level of quality that it can easily pass WP:FAC. But, it can stay open here. Doesn't matter to me. --Aude (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Aude isn't bothered, I will remove. Kudos to all who have improved it but I think it will take a while to audit for all the uncited simplicity and we're already at eight weeks of review. Another FAC won't be a bad thing. Marskell 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/United_States_Congress/archive1&oldid=1192289139"